DOCSLIB.ORG

Railway Investigation Report R07q0001 Main-Track Train

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Railway Investigation Report R07q0001 Main-Track Train RAILWAY INVESTIGATION REPORT R07Q0001 MAIN-TRACK TRAIN DERAILMENT CANADIAN NATIONAL FREIGHT TRAIN M-308-31-06 MILE 78.13, MONTMAGNY SUBDIVISION MONTMAGNY, QUEBEC 07 JANUARY 2007 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. Railway Investigation Report Main-Track Train Derailment Canadian National Freight Train M-308-31-06 Mile 78.13, Montmagny Subdivision Montmagny, Quebec 07 January 2007 Report Number R07Q0001 Summary On 07 January 2007, at 0133 eastern standard time, Canadian National freight train M-308-31-06 derailed 24 cars (19 loads and 5 empties) at Mile 78.13 on the Montmagny Subdivision, in the town of Montmagny, Quebec. Four of the derailed cars contained sulphuric acid. There were no injuries and no dangerous goods released. A workshop trailer was destroyed, and the VIA Rail Canada Inc. station building and two houses were slightly damaged. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. - 2 - Other Factual Information The Accident On 07 January 2007, Canadian National (CN) freight train M-308-31-06 (the train) departed Joffre Yard, Quebec, and proceeded eastward on the Montmagny Subdivision destined for Edmundston, New Brunswick. The train consisted of 3 locomotives and 122 cars (72 loads and 50 empties), weighed 10 587 tons and was 8384 feet long. The operating crew, a locomotive engineer and a conductor, met fitness and rest standards and were qualified for their respective positions and familiar with the territory. At 0133 eastern standard time,1 while passing through the town of Montmagny (see Figure 1), a train-initiated emergency brake application occurred when the locomotive was at Mile 77.2 and travelling at 48 mph with the throttle in the idle position. The lead locomotive came to rest at Mile 76.85. The train crew followed emergency procedures, inspected the train and found that 24 cars (68th to 91st cars) had derailed. Figure 1. Location of derailment, Montmagny, Quebec (source: Railway Association of Canada, Canadian Railway Atlas) 1 All times are eastern standard time (Coordinated Universal Time minus five hours). - 3 - A workshop trailer, owned by CN, was destroyed, and the VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA) station building and two inhabited houses were slightly damaged. Approximately 600 feet of track, a main-track turnout, the deck and the west span of the bridge over the Rivière du Sud at Mile 77.8 were damaged. At the time of the accident, the temperature was approximately 2°C with cloudy skies. The fire department was advised by local residents of the accident, and was on the scene within five minutes. Firemen received immediate information on the train and its cargo from the conductor. It was determined that no dangerous goods had been released and that no precautionary evacuation of local residents was necessary. The remaining work performed by fire and police services during the cleanup phase was limited to cooperating with the railway in ensuring site safety and limiting access to the site only to those residents living within the area and those involved in the cleanup until all public safety risks had been removed. Site Examination The derailed equipment consisted of four tank cars loaded with dangerous goods, three tank cars loaded with non-dangerous liquids, four centre beam flat cars, two automobile carriers, and eleven covered hopper cars. All the derailed equipment was examined; there were no pre-derailment defects observed on any car. The first four derailed cars (68th to 71st cars) were tank cars loaded with sulphuric acid (UN 1830) and were located on the bridge. The tank shell of the 71st car, SHPX 207620, a Class 111A tank car, was deformed by impact after it had struck the northwest corner of the last span of the bridge. The tank shell was not breached and no product was released. The car was stripped of its trailing truck, which remained near the main-track turnout at Mile 78.13 leading to an industrial siding located on the north side of the main track. The cars behind the tank cars were derailed in an accordion pattern across the main track, the station platform, and into the street behind the station. The turnout located at Mile 78.13 was a CN No. 12, 115-pound, hand-operated (CN Standard Plan Drawing TS-012) with the switch points facing east (see Appendix A). There were no records on the origin and history of the north switch point rail. It was rolled in 1965 but was probably never installed in track before its installation at the accident site in 2004. It had less than 2 mm of wear. The track damage started in the vicinity of the turnout. The track structure was destroyed from that point, eastward, for a distance of 600 feet. The north switch point was broken into multiple pieces. Three joint bars were recovered. The inside joint bar from the north switch point was missing. One switch plate was broken and the adjacent switch plates were bowed downward and had heavily polished and worn surfaces. The four bolt holes at the outside joint bar at the heel block were asymmetrically elongated and two of the joint bars bolts were fractured. The tie immediately beneath the heel block joint was severely damaged during the derailment; however, it showed signs of previous degradation and had several old longitudinal splits (see Photo 1). This tie was the only switch tie that did not shift laterally during the derailment. - 4 - Photo 1. Track ties beneath the heel block joint Several broken components recovered from the heel block joint area were sent to the TSB Engineering Laboratory for analysis. The examination of the components revealed that pre-existing fatigue cracks were present at the end of the north switch point rail, on the broken switch plate, and on two joint bar bolts connecting the rails and the heel block (report LP 018/2007). The north heel block had fractured in two due to overstress. The fracture surface contained a pre-existing crack with a dark surface, indicative of long-term oxidation. The heel block edges that were in contact with the rails had a smooth, polished appearance, consistent with long-term rubbing wear. The end of the north closure rail had fractured in several parts. The vertical fracture surfaces had a rough texture consistent with fresh overstress failure while the horizontal fracture surfaces were damaged by extensive rubbing. No burrs or other anomalies were observed on bolt holes. There was a fracture at the end of the north switch point rail at the connecting joint with the closure rail. The fracture extended horizontally through the two bolt holes, then propagated vertically at the bond wire hole (see Photo 2). - 5 - Photo 2. Fracture through the bolt holes The holes were plastically deformed but there were no burrs around them. Although the fine surface details on the rail fracture surfaces had been obliterated, the smooth, polished appearance of the fracture surfaces was indicative of pre-existing fatigue cracks, whose surfaces were rubbing over an extended period. The base of the fractured north switch point rail and the south switch point rail were compared; the indications of long-term rubbing wear were more severe on the north switch point rail. The metallurgical analysis revealed that the north switch point rail was a carbon steel rail while the closure rail was a standard rail. No manufacturing defects or anomalies such as inclusions or porosities were found. The switch point rail material was coarse grained (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] grain size of 1 to 2) with an average internal Brinell hardness of 255 BHN while the closure rail material was fine grained (ASTM grain size of 4 to 5) with a hardness of 341 BHN. Fine grained steels are found in rail that has been manufactured using more modern processes. They are less susceptible to cracking and are tougher2 than coarse-grained steels. On main lines, carbon steel rail is no longer used. Standard rail is laid on tangent track while high strength rail is normally used on curves and on special track work such as frogs or switch points. On main lines having tonnage higher than 7 million gross tons, CN Maintenance of Way Standard Practice Circular (SPC) 3200, Appendix B, requires “New Rail”3 for the straight and the curved closure rails. On main lines having tonnage higher than 10 million gross tons, Appendix C of the same SPC calls for “New” standard rail (minimum Brinell hardness of 300 BHN) for tangent track and curves less than two degrees and for high strength rail (minimum Brinell hardness of 341 BHN) on curves higher than two degrees. 2 Fracture toughness is the resistance to brittle fracture (the degree of difficulty with which cracks propagate through a material). 3 “New Rail” is defined as rail that has not been in service, regardless of its manufacturing date. - 6 - There is no specific mention in CN’s SPCs about the specifications required for switch point rail; however, the practice is to use standard rail or high strength rail. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) SPC 9 requires “Premium Rail” on turnouts located in main lines (premium rail has a minimum Brinell hardness of 370 HB). Track Information The Montmagny Subdivision consists of a single main track that extends from the junction with the Chemin de fer de la Matapédia et du Golfe (Mile 1.3) near Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec, to Joffre Yard (Mile 118.0). Train movements are governed by the Centralized Traffic Control System as authorized by the Canadian Rail Operating Rules and are supervised by a rail traffic controller located in Montréal, Quebec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents
    Northeast Corridor One-Year Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2017 September 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. 2| NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents Introduction 6 Funding Summary 8 Baseline Capital Charge Program 10 1 - Boston South Station 12 16 - Shore to Girard 42 2 - Boston to Providence 14 17 - Girard to Philadelphia 30th Street 44 3 - Providence to Wickford Junction 16 18 - Philadelphia 30th Street - Arsenal 46 4 - Wickford Junction to New London 18 19 - Arsenal to Marcus Hook 48 5 - New London to New Haven 20 20 - Marcus Hook to Bacon 50 6 - New Haven to State Line 22 21 - Bacon to Perryville 52 7 - State Line to New Rochelle 24 22 - Perryville to WAS 54 8 - New Rochelle to Harold Interlocking 26 23 - Washington Union Terminal 56 9 - Harold Interlocking to F Interlocking 28 24 - WAS to CP Virginia 58 10 - F Interlocking to PSNY 30 25 - Springfield to New Haven 60 11 - Penn Terminal 32 27 - Spuyten Duyvil to PSNY* 62 12 - PSNY to Trenton 34 28 - 30th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport Buildings of Metropolitan Adelaide
    AÚ¡ University of Adelaide t4 É .8.'ìt T PUBLIC TRANSPORT BUILDII\GS OF METROPOLTTAN ADELAIDE 1839 - 1990 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning in candidacy for the degree of Master of Architectural Studies by ANDREW KELT (û, r're ¡-\ ., r ¡ r .\ ¡r , i,,' i \ September 1990 ERRATA p.vl Ljne2}oBSERVATIONshouldreadOBSERVATIONS 8 should read Moxham p. 43 footnote Morham facilities p.75 line 2 should read line 19 should read available Labor p.B0 line 7 I-abour should read p. r28 line 8 Omit it read p.134 Iine 9 PerematorilY should PerernPtorilY should read droP p, 158 line L2 group read woulC p.230 line L wold should PROLOGUE SESQUICENTENARY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT The one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of public transport in South Australia occurred in early 1989, during the research for this thesis. The event passed unnoticed amongst the plethora of more noteworthy public occasions. Chapter 2 of this thesis records that a certain Mr. Sp"y, with his daily vanload of passengers and goods, started the first regular service operating between the City and Port Adelaide. The writer accords full credit to this unsung progenitor of the chain of events portrayed in the following pages, whose humble horse drawn char ò bancs set out on its inaugural joumey, in all probability on 28 January L839. lll ACKNO\ryLEDGMENTS I would like to record my grateful thanks to those who have given me assistance in gathering information for this thesis, and also those who have commented on specific items in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007
    WATERBURY TRAIN STATION VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Waterbury Train Station is located near the city’s central business district. Adjacent to the facility is the old Union Station, now owned and occupied by the Waterbury Republican newspaper. Its 245-foot bell tower provides a landmark for locating the station. Using local roads to access the facility is not as easy due to a lack of trailblazing. Upon arriving at the station, one may have trouble locating the parking lot entrance, which is located several hundred feet south. A station sign has been placed at the entrance. The drive is partially obscured by a bank building and its poorly situated exit, which is only several feet from the parking lot driveway. The station itself consists of a short high- level platform, a ramp, two shelters and a parking lot. The station area is clean with only an occasional tossed item. However, the area across from the platform consists of abandoned tracks and railroad debris. The shelters are clean with benches. A recycling bin is located next to the shelters. Between the station and Meadow Street are an abandoned parking structure and vacant office building. The old driveway behind the platform is barricaded against use by commuters. A kiosk is situated at the north end of the platform. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Trash: Metro-North Snow Removal: Metro-North Shelter Glazing: CDOT Platform Canopy: CDOT Platform Structure: CDOT Parking: City Page 2 Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Aerial Photo by Aero-Metric, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1
    Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1. Overview 5 6. Site 55 1.1 Background 5 6.1 Introduction 55 1.2 Introduction 5 6.2 Multi-modal Planning 56 1.3 Contents of the Guidelines 6 6.3 Context 57 1.4 Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 7 6.4 Station/Platform Confi gurations 61 1.5 Governing Principles 8 6.5 Track and Platform Planning 65 6.6 Vehicular Circulation 66 6.7 Bicycle Parking 66 2. Process 11 6.8 Parking 67 2.1 Introduction 11 6.9 Amtrak Functional Requirements 68 2.2 Stakeholder Coordination 12 6.10 Information Systems and Way Finding 69 2.3 Concept Development 13 6.11 Safety and Security 70 2.4 Funding 14 6.12 Sustainable Design 71 2.5 Real Estate Transactional Documents 14 6.13 Universal Design 72 2.6 Basis of Design 15 2.7 Construction Documents 16 2.8 Project Delivery methods 17 7. Station 73 2.9 Commissioning 18 7.1 Introduction 73 2.10 Station Opening 18 7.2 Architectural Overview 74 7.3 Information Systems and Way Finding 75 7.4 Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) 77 3. Amtrak System 19 7.5 Safety and Security 78 3.1 Introduction 19 7.6 Sustainable Design 79 3.2 Service Types 20 7.7 Accessibility 80 3.3 Equipment 23 3.4 Operations 26 8. Platform 81 8.1 Introduction 81 4. Station Categories 27 8.2 Platform Types 83 4.1 Introduction 27 8.3 Platform-Track Relationships 84 4.2 Summary of Characteristics 28 8.4 Connection to the station 85 4.3 Location and Geography 29 8.5 Platform Length 87 4.4 Category 1 Large stations 30 8.6 Platform Width 88 4.5 Category 2 Medium Stations 31 8.7 Platform Height 89 4.6 Category 3 Caretaker Stations 32 8.8 Additional Dimensions and Clearances 90 4.7 Category 4 Shelter Stations 33 8.9 Safety and Security 91 4.8 Thruway Bus Service 34 8.10 Accessibility 92 8.11 Snow Melting Systems 93 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Railways As World Heritage Sites
    Occasional Papers for the World Heritage Convention RAILWAYS AS WORLD HERITAGE SITES Anthony Coulls with contributions by Colin Divall and Robert Lee International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 1999 Notes • Anthony Coulls was employed at the Institute of Railway Studies, National Railway Museum, York YO26 4XJ, UK, to prepare this study. • ICOMOS is deeply grateful to the Government of Austria for the generous grant that made this study possible. Published by: ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) 49-51 Rue de la Fédération F-75015 Paris France Telephone + 33 1 45 67 67 70 Fax + 33 1 45 66 06 22 e-mail [email protected] © ICOMOS 1999 Contents Railways – an historical introduction 1 Railways as World Heritage sites – some theoretical and practical considerations 5 The proposed criteria for internationally significant railways 8 The criteria in practice – some railways of note 12 Case 1: The Moscow Underground 12 Case 2: The Semmering Pass, Austria 13 Case 3: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, United States of America 14 Case 4: The Great Zig Zag, Australia 15 Case 5: The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, India 17 Case 6: The Liverpool & Manchester Railway, United Kingdom 19 Case 7: The Great Western Railway, United Kingdom 22 Case 8: The Shinkansen, Japan 23 Conclusion 24 Acknowledgements 25 Select bibliography 26 Appendix – Members of the Advisory Committee and Correspondents 29 Railways – an historical introduction he possibility of designating industrial places as World Heritage Sites has always been Timplicit in the World Heritage Convention but it is only recently that systematic attention has been given to the task of identifying worthy locations.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.3 Railway Bridge 35 6.4 Track Work 38 6.5 Drainage 41
    Executive Summary Report Detailed Design of Track Doubling Project for Transportation and Logistics (Section: Prachuap Khiri Khan – Chumphon) TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Scope of Work 2 1.4 Development Targets 2 1.5 Project Components 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 2.1 Route Alignment 6 2.2 Station 8 2.3 Track 11 2.4 Railway Bridge 12 2.5 Signalling, Traffic Control and Telecommunication Systems 12 2.6 Railway Crossing 13 3 DEMAND FORECAST 14 4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND GEOTECHNIC SURVEY 17 4.1 Topographic Survey and Mapping 17 4.2 Geotechnical Survey 18 5 ALIGNMENT DESIGN 21 5.1 Alignment 21 5.2 Track Diagram 31 6 RAILWAY STRUCTURE AND TRACK WORK DESIGN 33 6.1 Geotechnical Foundation 33 6.2 At–Grade Railway Structure 33 6.3 Railway Bridge 35 6.4 Track Work 38 6.5 Drainage 41 PCBK / CMCL / UAE i Executive Summary Report Detailed Design of Track Doubling Project for Transportation and Logistics (Section: Prachuap Khiri Khan – Chumphon) TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS Page 7 STATION DESIGN 45 7.1 Architecture or Railway Station and Functional Areas 45 7.2 Platform Height 58 7.3 Civil and Structural Works of Station and Functional Areas 58 7.4 Electrical and Mechanical Systems for Station and Functional Areas 59 7.5 Intermodal Facilities 61 7.6 Station Access Roads 62 7.7 Freight Transport Facilities 63 8 RAILWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS AND FENCING 66 8.1 Railway Crossing 66 8.2 Safety Fencing 71 9 TRAIN OPERATION DESIGN 74 9.1 Forecasted Services 74 9.2 Train Diagram 75 10 SIGNALLING
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota's Railroads
    South Dakota’s Railroads South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office South Dakota’s Railroads: An Historic Context Prepared for: South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 900 Governors Drive Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Prepared by: Mark Hufstetler and Michael Bedeau Renewable Technologies, Inc. 511 Metals Bank Bldg. Butte, Montana 59701 July 1998 Revised, December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................2 A. Purpose of this Document..............................................................................................2 B. Methodology ..................................................................................................................3 2. The Importance of Railroads to South Dakota ...........................................................................4 3. The History of Railroading in South Dakota..............................................................................5 A. Geographical Background .............................................................................................5 B. Establishment and Expansion: South Dakota Railroads in the Nineteenth Century......6 1. Beginnings (1851-1868) .....................................................................................6 2. The Little Dakota Boom and the First Railroads (1868-1873)...........................8 3. Railway Expansion During the Great Dakota Boom (1878-1887).....................9 4. The Impact and
    [Show full text]
  • Union Junction Interlocking Tower HAER NO. MD-50 (Northeast
    Union Junction Interlocking Tower HAER NO. MD-50 (Northeast Corridor Project) Adjacent to railroad tracks in block |4Afcj bounded by Federal, Guilford, Royal, and Calvert Streets Baltimore (independent City) _ Maryland M ' P*\M , PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MID-ATLANTIC REGION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD M - 6 ft L.T Union Junction Interlocking Tower (Northeast Corridor Project) HAER No. MD-50 Location: Adjacent to railroad tracks in block bounded by Federal, Guilford, Royal, and Calvert Streets Baltimore (independent City), Maryland Quad: Baltimore West Date of Construction 1910 Present Owner: National Railroad Passenger Corporation Suburban Station Building 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Present Use: Houses interlocking machine which controls signals and switches for train movements Significance: The tower is part of the Pennsylvania Station complex, which represented the peak of railroad development in Baltimore. Its design, construction, and associated machinery are representative of railroad construction practices and technology in the early 20th century. Project Information: Demolition of the Union Junction Interlocking Tower is to be funded by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, mitigative documentation was undertaken by Janice G. Artemel, historian, with the assistance of M. Orelup, L. Crye, and E. Gallagher, for the FRA in 1983. Transmitted by: Jean P. Yearby, HAER, 1985 UNION JUNCTION INTERLOCKING TOWER (Ncrilieast Corridor Project) HAER No. MD-50 (Page 2) UNION JUNCTION INTERLOCKING TOWER The equipment that regulates train movements at Union Junction interlocking in Baltimore, Maryland, is housed in a tower near Baltimore's Pennsylvania Station (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation of the Railway in Cambodia (Financed by the Japan Special Fund)
    Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report Project Number: 37269 November 2006 Cambodia: Preparing the Greater Mekong Subregion: Rehabilitation of the Railway in Cambodia (Financed by the Japan Special Fund) Prepared by Japan Railway Technical Service in association with Nippon Koei Co., Ltd. and Engconsult Ltd. Tokyo, Japan For the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Royal Government of Cambodia This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design. Asian Development Bank TA 6251-REG GMS REHABILITATION OF THE RAILWAY IN CAMBODIA FINAL REPORT (Volume 1) November 2006 in association with Engconsult Ltd. FINAL REPORT CONTENTS • VOLUME 1 – The Study for Main Lines APPENDICES Appendix 1 Initial Environmental Examination (separate volume) Appendix 2 Resettlement Plan (separate volume) Appendix 3 Hydrological Data (separate volume) Appendix 4 Track Condition Survey Report Appendix 5 Structure Condition Survey Report (separate volume) Appendix 6 Sleepers Condition Survey Report (separate volume) Appendix 7 Description of Requirements for Detail Design and Construction Supervision Appendix 8 Tender Documents (separate volumes) Bidding Document for Design and Construction of Railway Rehabilitation Volume 1 Instructions, General Conditions, Particular Conditions, Bid, Forms, Schedules, Eligible Countries
    [Show full text]
  • Stamford Individual Station Report
    STAMFORD TRANSPORTATION CENTER VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Stamford Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Stamford Transportation Center is located by Exit 8 of I-95. The station and parking garage were constructed in 1985. Center island platforms and the new pedestrian bridge were added in 2002 and the garage was expanded to over 2000 spaces in 2004. The center includes a bus terminal, a small commercial mall and taxi stand. The Stamford train station is the second busiest station on the New Haven Line (Grand Central Terminal is the busiest). Thousands of patrons pass through its doors everyday. Its center island platforms can board four trains at a time. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Trash: Metro-North Snow Removal: Metro-North Shelter Glazing: Metro-North Platform Canopy: Metro-North Platform Structure: Metro-North Parking: CDOT Page 2 Stamford Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Station Building State-Owned Parking Area Municipality-Owned Parking Area Privately-Owned Parking Area Page 3 Stamford Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Train Station Visual Inspection Parameters: The Connecticut Department of Transportation (Department) recently inspected all 36 New Haven Line train stations to assess their appearance, safety, means of access and overall condition. Observations have been noted in an inspection report prepared for each station. The findings of these individual reports will be used to develop a Station Improvement Program. Initially, maintenance issues will be passed along to responsible parties for resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure: Transport Listing Selection Guide Summary
    Infrastructure: Transport Listing Selection Guide Summary Historic England’s twenty listing selection guides help to define which historic buildings are likely to meet the relevant tests for national designation and be included on the National Heritage List for England. Listing has been in place since 1947 and operates under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. If a building is felt to meet the necessary standards, it is added to the List. This decision is taken by the Government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). These selection guides were originally produced by English Heritage in 2011: slightly revised versions are now being published by its successor body, Historic England. The DCMS‘ Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings set out the over-arching criteria of special architectural or historic interest required for listing and the guides provide more detail of relevant considerations for determining such interest for particular building types. See https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/principles-of-selection-for-listing-buildings. Each guide falls into two halves. The first defines the types of structures included in it, before going on to give a brisk overview of their characteristics and how these developed through time, with notice of the main architects and representative examples of buildings. The second half of the guide sets out the particular tests in terms of its architectural or historic interest a building has to meet if it is to be listed. A select bibliography gives suggestions for further reading. This guide assesses structures associated with all forms of transport. The turnpike and canal systems revolutionised road and water travel, and arguably made the Industrial Revolution possible.
    [Show full text]